Proposal to the organisers of the Championship - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
That's why there won't be an influx of monkeys. On the other hand, if someone from the "Circle of Faces" did take advantage of this point, the competition would only get more colourful
Additional advisors could be subject to strict requirements for their description, and in general, it would be possible to limit the range of people who can do so (for example, by participation in the life of the community).
(For example, I would love to see how the ATC2011 top ten experts would behave at the current championships).
Well a top ten might be a lot. But it is possible to allow the top three winners of the last championship (with their consent) to exhibit two robots each at the next championship (as an incentive),
One of them is a new robot, and the other one is from the previous championship, but it has been optimised for the new market conditions.
I can make a hundred such EAs with the help of a wizard. I'll invest 100 quid in cloud optimisation, and each EA will be unique. But what do we see? The optimised MACD Sample wins. There were interesting ideas, but they were not in the lead and did not win the contest. Why do I participate?
I for example am taking part to attract investors in an open PAMM, which is +200 ? profit for 2 weeks.
The reality is that apart from "Uncle Tolya" with 100 variants of MACD parameters already, we will not see anything. Nor will we see professional participants who do not want to take part in an uncontrolled and insane competition.
The rules are well thought out, there have been many internal discussions with questions being raised "should something be changed?". As a result, in 6 years it has turned out that the rules cannot be changed.
The rules will have to be changed if you want to popularise robot trading. I'm tired of seeing insignificant MACD variations that are only useful for the Championship. It is better not to use them in real trading, because many EAs know very well its real value.
I'm all for fewer monkeys. We need smart human advisors, not simia Bernoulli ("Bernoulli monkey" is my term: it's a robot that makes trades at random and on average leaks a spread per trade - for monkey!).
I want ATS to have intelligence and I want ATS to become really interesting. I remember one (2007) when the neuro advisor Better won. Never mind what happened to it afterwards. The important thing was that it was a work of thought, not dumb MACD fitting without any confidence in the outcome. And people did seriously wonder - could it be that neurocellsets are really worth it?
None of the other ATCs (perhaps excluding the "ATS pipsetters", i.e. ATC 2008) caused such a surge of optimism.
We will have to come up with mechanisms which make people think, rather than stupidly clone known ideas without risking anything.(And what's that got to do with drawing styles (see green text tooltip)?)
You cannot just say: "People, think about it, and stupid advisors will be excluded. We'll have to come up with more sophisticated rules that exclude such advisers in advance and make the championship more interesting as a result.
In short, ATC should become a purveyor of money managers to potential investors, rather than a bunch of monkeys, by hook or by crook, eager for a slice of the prize hundred thousand. This will raise the profile of both ATS itself and the MT5 platform.
I do not believe that Xupypr is incapable of doing anything else but MACD!
P.S. I apologize for being harsh, if I went too far.The rules will have to change if you want to popularise robot trading. I'm sick and tired of looking at insignificant MACD variations, which are only useful for the time of the Championship. I am tired of looking at insignificant MACD variations, which are of no use any more than during the Championship.
I am in favour of having less monkeys. We need smart human EAs, not simia Bernoulli ("Bernoulli's monkey" is my term: it's a robot, which makes deals randomly and on the average loses a spread per deal - for he is a monkey!)
I want ATS to have intelligence and I want ATS to become really interesting. I remember one (2007) when the neuro advisor Better won. Never mind what happened to it afterwards. The important thing was that it was a work of thought, not dumb MACD fitting without any confidence in the outcome. And people did seriously wonder - could it be that neurocellsets are really worth it?
None of the other ATCs (perhaps excluding the "ATS pipsetters", i.e. ATC 2008) caused such a surge of optimism.
We will have to come up with mechanisms to make people think, rather than stupidly cloning known ideas without risking anything.
You can't just say, "People, think and stupid advisers will be excluded". We'll have to come up with more sophisticated rules that exclude such advisors in advance and make the championship more interesting as a result.
I don't believe Xupypr is capable of anything other than MACD!
Why do you insult those who write MACD variants? I, for example, have a different opinion. I think all those grids are no better than a simple MACD. The experience of the previous Championships proves it. And if the Championship promoted the network or other sophisticated mathematical trading methods, it would attract fewer people, because most of the traders are not familiar with these methods and believe that profitable trading is possible only with such sophisticated methods.
There is no need to change anything in the rules. The low number of participants comparing with 2008 is because there is no broker that offers mt5 for real trading. That's why most traders sit in mt4. For brokers to implement mt5 on the real account they need to see a large flow of requests from their clients, as one American broker explained to me. But clients are not in a hurry to switch to mt5. This is exactly the championship on mt5, which allows you to attract more and more people to mt5 through the prize money. And not only people with mathematical education, but everyone, who is able to program. These are the latter ones who will make up the main contingent of new users. If you want to quickly increase the number of participants, increase the prize. For 1 million prize dollars and milkmaids will start to learn MT5 :)
The rules will have to change if you want to popularise robot trading. I'm sick and tired of looking at insignificant MACD variations, which are only useful for the time of the Championship. I am tired of looking at insignificant MACD variations, which are of no use any more than during the Championship.
I am in favour of having less monkeys. We need smart EAs , not simia Bernoulli ("Bernoulli's monkey" is my term: it's a robot that makes trades at random and on average leaks a spread per trade - for he is a monkey!)
As one of the locals said, "Everyone is losing. Those who work on large TFs, just do not wait to lose. So they die rich ;)".
And I agree with this thought - in the long term any neuronet will go down, unless it is endowed with human brains of course. Otherwise it would be a grail, and as you know, it does not exist ("all believers to hell" (c) ;)
Well, if you're so cool that you're confident in your non-monkey algorithm, beating 400 monkeys won't be a problem. But, in fact, if you're really like that, then the championship just isn't interesting for you - it's not that hard to find investors, and you can earn a lot more.
The Championship will achieve its goals with monkeys as well - only the best ones are always in the top 10.
Imho, MQ will change the rules only if the championship ends without a winner )
The rules will have to change if you want to popularise robot trading. I'm sick and tired of looking at insignificant MACD variations, which are only useful for the time of the Championship. In the meantime, it is better not to put them on the real market, because a lot of people know very well what their real value is.
You cannot just say: "People, think about it, and stupid advisors will be excluded. We'll have to come up with more sophisticated rules that exclude such advisers in advance and make the championship more interesting as a result.
In short, ATC should become a supplier of money managers to potential investors, rather than a bunch of monkeys, by hook or by crook, eager for a piece of the prize of a hundred thousand. This will raise the credibility of both ATS itself and the MT5 platform.
An example from people, not advisors: in 37, very sophisticated rules were also invented (and in effect!) that excluded, among other things, a large number of people from life. But that doesn't mean that those who stayed and got into all sorts of tops are much better than those they excluded... All exclusivity violates justice, and there should be no exclusivity in competition...
Pyssy: And the degree of sophistication for the purpose of exclusion can be raised to the sky, for example, can be allowed to participate only advisors who wrote Mathemat (no offense, this is just for example)... Would such a championship be interesting? Will it popularize MT5? :)
About the Surgeon, is he in the championship? I would love to see his creation this year. Or was he satisfied with his past winnings))))
Man, the prize tax is making the mood very uncomfortable((((
(Ukraine - 30% of the winnings)
Just don't confuse the term applied to councillors with name-calling :)
Maybe they're not better. Or maybe you just have to know how to cook them. Here Better managed - even if only for a limited time. But his victory was very convincing, and people have become more interested in the nerves.
Did I talk about a grail working forever?
There is no need to change anything in the rules. One advisor per contestant.
I'm not arguing with that rule. I don't like the other rule: 'the contestant with the highest balance wins'. And even that can be left as it is by changing the rules of elimination at the testing stage. Well, for example, instead of regular testing we could introduce forward testing.
Did you mean to say "only the luckiest of them"?
An example from the life of people, not councillors: In 37, too, very sophisticated rules were invented (and enforced!), which excluded, among others, a large number of people from life. But that doesn't mean that those who stayed and got into all sorts of tops are much better than those they excluded... All exclusivity violates justice, and there should be no exclusivity in competition...
Pyssy: And the degree of sophistication for the purpose of exclusion can be raised to the sky, for example, can be allowed to participate only advisors who wrote Mathemat (no offense, this is just for example)... Would such a championship be interesting? Will it popularize MT5? :)
Somehow it seems to me that you are obviously in the wrong place - with such techniques of bringing it to the point of absurdity.
And the highlighted in blue is, sorry, a masterpiece. That's the way to the Olympics, we could allow everyone to enter. What would happen then?